And they say we, Poles, have a dry sense of humour. Let me guess Milos, you are on purpouse mixing up two definitions of the "White Sea" (Бело море / Belo More) in Serbian. :P
Coming back to the question of Yaroslav: this issue comes up regularily and I find it perfectly valid.
Two years ago in Milan we had a quite heated discussion on this topic. The problem is that "the global south" is a yet another widespread and well-intended but inherently lame euphemism for "poor countries" also known as "the third world", a.k.a. "developing countries" a.k.a. something different whatever comes handy. Unfortunately, euphemisms bring big problems on their own.
One huge problem with this division is its heroic simplicity, mixing up economic differences with social and cultural issues and splitting the world into white and black, no grey.
Second thing is its mix of geography with socioeconomic issues which leads to confusions, even in classification by e.g. ITU.
Third thing is: it is arbitrary as no firm metric or threshold is given. Contrary to the claim, the Wikimedia list is *not* solely based on ITU list and UN list (what can be actually better, because according to ITU and UN M49 Bosnia and Hercegovina is "North", when Hongkong, Macau and South Korea are.. South!).
Certainly, everything can be managable when you remember about the questionable definitions and build your strategies upon a more refined thinking. It would be _bad_ if this tag was used as a "support more / less" flag and financial decisions on particular projects and people were heavily based upon this underexplained and arbitrary list.
// Side note: even in case of Wikimania 2015 I am aware of at least one example of a "global northerner" refused a visa to Mexico, which is allegedly in the Global South.
Personally, I would drop this "global south / north" thinking altogether and in financial decisions move to some more refined analysis, taking into account multiple benchmarks like personal income (which is often distributed far less equal in the developing world).
In the global perspective, I would be happy if the Board considered an official change of the strategy to some more detailed perspective, openly communicating which cultural and socioeconomic areas they find particularly interesting and what are their plans to each of them. E.g.: "why do we think the Arab world is important and how do we want to build a thriving community sharing our basic values there?") However whatever approach will be taken, if would be great if this topic is even better communicated (I know many people try already, kudos to Theo10011 and others for https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_South ) and discussed.
Otherwise people will keep on asking why UAE or Kuwait people are considered "poor" while Kosovars are labeled "rich".
Best Regards, michał buczyński
Dnia 11 czerwca 2015 22:14 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com napisał(a):
I think the reason is more than obvious: Belarus is south of Moldova and
Ukraine is in between, so it went south. As Russia is basically on the east
of all of three countries, it's logical to put it among the northern countries.Not that I object the general reasoning, but Belarus is north of
Moldova (Ukraine is either way).
Besides it's not nice to write spoilers on the public list, I would remind you that according to the 6th century
naming rules, every White Sea has to be south of every Black Sea. As Moldova is closer to the Black Sea than
Belarus, Belarus is closer to the White Sea, it's logical that Belarus is on the south of Moldova.